A mágus

Történelmi mese fogyasztói néző számára. A szereplők jellemzése leegyszerűsített, a két szereplő közötti érzelmeket itt a giccses megvilágítással és az arcukon kívüli kép elmosódásával hozzák létre. Mint a legrosszabb szappanoperában. Másrészt - a történet gyors tempóban halad előre, és a Philip Glass zenéjével aláfestett Pozsony és Prága hatása ellenállhatatlan, sőt meseszerűen történelmi. Kissé meglepő, hogy a legmarkánsabb karakter (és alakítás) nem Edward Norton, hanem Paul Giamatti. Ha nem lenne az a nagyon kínos próbálkozás, hogy lenyűgözzön minket a csattanóval, amire minden kicsit is gondolkodó néző (legalább) tíz perccel korábban magától is rájön; és főleg, ha nem lenne a teljes üresség és alulfejlettség, adnék "vétkes" 4*-ot. (2009.02.15)

The Illusionist is very unlucky, since it directly clashed in time with another film about magic, Christopher Nolan's The Prestige, against which it doesn't stand a chance, even without closer examination. While the second film is characterized by its darkness and nerve-wracking complex twists, Neil Burger makes do with only a slightly mysterious atmosphere and simply drawn characters – good-evil-righteous-beautiful. Nevertheless, I liked this straightforward fairytale, even though it has serious flaws of logic in its explanations, but thanks to the suitable magical mood and clearly defined genre rules, it is more than pleasant in its simplicity. (2007.02.03)

Surprisingly more entertaining than The Prestige for me. Edward Norton steals the whole film for himself, he is intelligent, charismatic, insightful and a very talented illusionist. The period in which the film takes place suited me very well, the romance is apt and not annoying and the overall flow of the plot is very brisk and not boring, so for me I'm satisfied, I don't even know why I put the film off for so long. Very good. 80%. (2014.12.10)

A fairytale dressed up as an ingenious show for adults. The Illusionist shows its colors in the title. For most of the movie it pretends to be something different than what it is. It seems to be a clever and well thought out picture until the last five minutes when it pulls out its true colors and it turns out to be woefully dumb. I mean the explanation for idiots at the end is so pointless when everything was obvious an hour before the end. I’m more fascinated about the fact that the creators all of a sudden ignore the only part that would have demolished this like a house of cards: the “spirits". This certainly is no disappointment in terms of the acting, but I must admit that I was expecting something more from such a cast. Up until his performance at the Hofburg in front of the nobility, The Illusionist is outstanding, then it is just good and at the end almost ridiculous. Apart from that, it’s a bit longer than is needed to be. But what makes it interesting for the Czechs among us are the filming locations and, for everybody, Glass’s music which occasionally does too much the work itself. (2008.02.16)

I wouldn't have expected such a bland performance from Norton (another Italian Job?), and maybe he didn't even know what ear-splitting lines the script would force him to let out of his mouth. The only thing that keeps this below-average fable afloat, with the look of a slightly more expensive TV production, is the great (and better from film to film) Giammatti, while the final Shyamalan-like twist stands on very shaky legs. And I might rename the whole film to "Hologram Man" – Eisenheim's stunts in the second half were closer to science fiction than to illusory shenanigans (nasty nitwit Lima). (2007.01.09)